MADHAV COPPER LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking to challenge the action of the respondent with the following prayers.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate assisted by Mr. Chetan Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner.

(3.) According to Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner, the provisional attachment by exercising the powers under Sec. 83 has been done without there being any proceedings pending. He has emphatically urged that the search proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner, however, at the time of exercising the powers under Sec. 83, the Commissioner is required to form his opinion. Neither has he formed any opinion nor is it justifiable for him to exercise these powers in absence of any pending proceedings. He has relied on the decision of Radhakishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2021 48 GSTL 112 Supreme Court.